Whether forecasts...

[harry_rag]

...are a good bet or not, that is the question! Separate thread so as not to clutter up the L15 thread and so those who (understandably) don't want to wade through hypothetical waffle can look away now. Basically following on from a previous discussion with @Zilzalian, all figures based on Saturday's 1:15 at Ascot.

• The overround on the win market (mid morning) was 109.7% with 365 (at SP it was 113.3%). Nothing unusual there; we know that some people can make a profit from backing winners and you can reduce the disadvantage by shopping around for best price or betting at BFSP.
• On the forecasts it was 135.1% so 365 are taking a lot more margin out of that market than the straight win. Stating the obvious to say that makes it much harder to win betting on forecasts than it is betting to win. You could find 3 runners that you rate well clear of the field and get great value about them in the win market. Back them in the forecast market and you're either getting worse value or no value whatsoever.
• The three horses put up for forecast purposes were priced at 3.5, 34 and 71 to win. If you remove the bookies margin (making the simplistic assumption of it being applied equally to all runners) that implies 365 had the true odds at 3.84, 37.3 and 77.89.
• Compare that for the forecasts involving the 3.5 and 34 shot; the prices offered were 76.78 and 126.97 whereas the "true" prices with no margin were 103.75 and 171.57. If they applied the same lower margin to the forecasts as they do to the win market you'd have been getting a less mean 94.57 and 156.38.
• Out of curiosity I looked at the prices you'd get backing a horse to win by dutching all 7 relevant forecasts and also to finish second by doing the same. The 33/1 shot paid 32.35 win and 20.66 to come 2nd while the 5/2 shot paid 2.84 win and 2.92 second. Suggesting that more margin is taken out of the fancied runners than the outsiders and (perhaps) more is taken out of the 2nd place element than the win.

So much for the numbers themselves, I could do with a brew before I post my (relatively brief) conclusions. Hopefully no-one's breath is excessively bated!

[harry_rag]

Conclusions then, and going a bit deeper into this on a specific race has only confirmed the view I'd already formed, basically I don't like the bet and I think it's poor value. Why voluntarily take on a market with such massive margins added when there are better alternatives available? I accept I'm unlikely to change Zil's views based on years of actual experience and his own firmly held beliefs on the subject with a purely theoretical angle but the numbers are hard to argue with.

I doubt anyone could make a profit by playing this market. You'd need a huge sample to prove it either way but I'd be surprised if anyone could show 1000 races where they'd played the forecasts and were in front. If they were I'd still suspect they could have got a better return by taking a different approach. I can't get away from the fact that you're either getting worse value or non at all compared to just backing the win singles.

Bottom line is I believe anyone would be better off just backing the singles rather than splitting a small stake off to play the forecasts. If you want to maximise the work you've done in identifying 2 or 3 runners that are clear of the field (and have a tilt at a bigger return) then I'd say do doubles across 2 races rather than fc in each race. Doubles multiply your edge where you've got one whereas the forecasts reduce it. Yes you can hit a big win every now and again but the odds are almost certain to be poor and the cross-race doubles are the better way to pursue that.

I suppose you can make the "fun" argument and there's going to be satisfaction in calling the first two home correctly but, for me, what's the point if you believe the bet is demonstrably poor value.

That concludes the case for the prosecution. Defense views welcome!